There would be one chief county executive, fewer elected officials and a turnaround in how local government is run if a proposal endorsed by Gov. Mitch Daniels and other lawmakers is approved by the Indiana General Assembly.
Bills that would restructure county government are being debated by Hoosier lawmakers, and local officials are wondering if the changes would be worth it.
"I think it would make for better government ... ," said Grant County Auditor Mike Burton, adding that now there are sometimes turf battles and personality clashes. "In county government, you have so many elected officials and divisions of power. ... You have a bumping of heads."
Jim McWhirt, Grant County Council president, said arguments can be made for either keeping government the way it's been for more than 100 years, or for changing it. But he said he hasn't seen proof that it will save money, and until he does he leans toward keeping things the way they are.
"If we can save money doing it, we ought to consider it," he said. "But either way could work."
Plans stir debate
Senate Bill 506 would eliminate the three-member board of county commissioners, create a county executive and make the county council both the legislative and fiscal body.
Currently, the three county commissioners make legislative and executive decisions, while the county council has oversight on the finances. The new system would make counties run similar to cities, with a mayor and a council.
"The majority of people in the county don't know the difference between a county councilman and a county commissioner ... ," said Sen. Phil Boots, R-Crawfordsville. "I think the county should have one single point person who's responsible to answering to their constituents as opposed to three."
Boots wrote the bill, and the governor endorsed the move after it was recommended in the Kernan-Shepard report of local government reform.
A similar bill is also filed in the general assembly by Boots, but requires county officials and the general public to approve of the changes. A joint resolution also has been filed that would remove the county recorder, treasurer, coroner and surveyor from the state constitution. Daniels suggests the county executive appoint those positions.
The bills are among those that would streamline local government. Grant County officials have been following legislation, and have formed their own opinions on whether local government could run better if it's changed.
Burton said the way the county runs now, it's cumbersome to get things done.
He agrees, however, that the auditor should remain elected but said the treasurer should also remain elected by the general public as opposed to appointed.
Roger Bainbridge, Grant County treasurer, said at first he was opposed to the idea of a single county executive because it would allow for too much ability for corruption. But now, he says, he can see where a person in position of authority that really wants to do good for the county can get things done easier under the new plan.
"You'd better pick the right one for that position," Bainbridge said. "This is not someone we should pick lightly."
Bainbridge said, however, that he doesn't see where the new system would save money. If the state officials are going to consolidate to save money, they should consider combining counties and reduce the current high amount of counties, he said.
Commissioners want public to decide
Commissioner David Glickfield said around 75 percent of the county's general fund expenditures are on criminal justice, so he doesn't understand why the state government is focusing on elected officials when there are greater things that can be done in local government to save.
"The real problem isn't the organization of county government," he said. "The real problem is we have to spend so much money because there's crime out there."
Right now, Glickfield said each county commissioner brings expertise to the table - including backgrounds in law enforcement, business and insurance. If there's only one county executive, Glickfield said that experience would be lost.
Right now, Glickfield said county government's method of checks and balances is good.
"I haven't seen passing the buck on anything," he said. "I think county government works."
Mark Bardsley, president of the commissioners, said he can see both sides of the coin when it comes to restructuring government.
The citizens, however, should be able to vote on the matter, Bardsley said. Smaller agricultural counties, for example, work better with a three-person system because they can all be part-time officials and bring their expertise to the table.
The single-person executive makes sense from a command and control perspective, Bardsley said, and it also makes business sense because there aren't three CEOs of a company or three mayors of a city.
David Bottorff, executive director of the Association of Indiana Counties, said the only way the association would support it is if the county commissioners support it and each county can decide for themselves how their government is run.
He said the current system has a lot of merit to it. It provides for leadership development in small communities, and it allows for checks and balances. He also said that other county positions should remain elected as opposed to appointed by the county executive.
"People like to elect those offices," Bottorff said. "They don't want them to be an appointed bureaucracy."
Boots said he fears it's going to take several attempts in the general assembly to make such changes in the state. He said that lobbyists for commissioners and counties are protecting their turf, and the common citizen needs to let lawmakers know if they want change.
Copyright © 2024 Chronicle-Tribune